What that model does in a roundabout manner is to allow too much power in the hands of the masternode operators which will always remain a minority in numbers versus non-masternode owning miners. The previous meeting with the Dash Core Group with consensus handed financial wealth and influence in abundance to masternode operators, maybe it is time for the core group to re-evaluate that stance because the present formula is not the most conducive.
The jury is still out on masternodes but it is swinging heavily towards something that just is not really required therefore why have them?
They are required for 1 thing over everything else: To facilitate a high mining quota while supporting services (by decoupling the service layer from the mining layer on-chain). The high mining quota is needed to store value, just as bitcoin does, using the
capital transfer business model of POW.
The question then presents itself: "Why then torpedo your ability to absorb capital, having successfully liberated it from the service-layer priorities ?". Why not play the card you created for yourself ?
There are plenty of competitors that can do what Dash does if ALL we are going to do is be a functional service layer. There are NO competitors that can do both. So that's where the facepalm-factor lies in what we've done.